The Guardian Incident

[Wyvernkeeper]

I just came across a video on youtube, moderately convincing but i was more intrigued by the fact that I had never heard about the incident in question,

so what do we think - saucer, helicopter or hoax?

here is the video

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q1AxijIL94&...feature=related

I just found this as well which provides some backround information, ( I havnt had the chance to read it yet, will do so after I get back from work)

http://www.ufocasebook.com/carpcanada.html

Peace y'All

Edited November 17, 2008 by Wyvernkeeper

[Moonie2012]

When it comes down to it, it's just some lights on the ground that do nothing. Why didn't they get closer? Why didn't they stick around until it flew away?

It just rings of a hoax.

[Wyvernkeeper]

When it comes down to it, it's just some lights on the ground that do nothing. Why didn't they get closer? Why didn't they stick around until it flew away?

It just rings of a hoax.

Yeah, i was wondering why there is not footage of it 'leaving' ... You think you'd stay around for that bit!!!! I think the incident is granted such significance because of the mystery of this 'guardian' figure

[Hocus]

This is what i see:

* The shape of an unknown craft is clearly visible.

* That is alot of lights for a conventional aircraft isn't it?

* The shape closely resembles a saucer like shape with what appears to be a cockpit.

* Lights that no aircraft on earth uses and not as many.

As for hoax it cannot be ruled out, but it seems to fit to me.

I don't no what to make of that guardian fingerprint though. That is what makes me think hoax, but the video is interesting, but like was stated why havent we heard of it before?

[Moonie2012]

We HAVE heard of it before - that video has been posted here at least two other times in the recent past.

As for the lights/configuration - why do you assume it's an aircraft at all? It never flies!

Why would any craft have a strobe light, anyway? That just BEGS for attention - which I can only assume they wouldn't want, if it were real.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Moonie2012

[Wyvernkeeper]

We HAVE heard of it before - that video has been posted here at least two other times in the recent past.

As for the lights/configuration - why do you assume it's an aircraft at all? It never flies!

Why would any craft have a strobe light, anyway? that just BEGS for attention - which I can only assume they wouldn't want, if it were real.

Sorry, i have only joined recently... I thought it may have been posted before but i did a few keyword searches and nothing came up so i posted. But yeah, you make some good points, it doesnt really look like anything in particular if you are not inclined to view it as such... I believe there were accompanying witness testimonies but i cant seem to find them...

As for hoax it cannot be ruled out, but it seems to fit to me.

I don't no what to make of that guardian fingerprint though. That is what makes me think hoax, but the video is interesting, but like was stated why havent we heard of it before?

This is the other thing, this 'guardian'.... It just smells funny, i tend to feel that anyone inclined to use a pseudonym, especially one that reeks of such pretence whilst seemingly not actually having anything to protect might be a little suspect.

Its an exciting case but the flaws are too indicative of a hoax. I think it is far more likely that it is a hoax as opposed to a misidentified object, (ie - the usual weather balloon - willo the wisp explanations)

It would be great if there was a comprehensive catalogue of all ufo cases and their released documents online.... Just somewhere that would make information easier to find

[Hocus]

We HAVE heard of it before - that video has been posted here at least two other times in the recent past.

As for the lights/configuration - why do you assume it's an aircraft at all? It never flies!

Why would any craft have a strobe light, anyway? That just BEGS for attention - which I can only assume they wouldn't want, if it were real.

It's new to ME.

It is not moving but it is hovering, so that means it can fly.

Rules out a jeep cherokee with the fog lights on and the occupants hanging out the window with their maglites playing tricks.

As for all the questions about the lights, you will have to ask guardian those, becasue i don't know.

I was just stating what I saw in the video.

[Hocus]

Why would any craft have a strobe light, anyway? That just BEGS for attention

Who is to say that they do not want attention, in my opinion they would want attention, they want to be noticed.

They are not coming here for no reason.

[Moonie2012]

It is not moving but it is hovering, so that means it can fly.

Hovering?

Dude - you can't tell that AT ALL from this video - even if it really was!

But for the sake of argument - how exactly do you know it's "hovering"?

Edited November 17, 2008 by Moonie2012

[Hocus]

Hovering?

In the video it clearly looks like it is hovering, so i have no other reason to suspcest it is doing otherwise, wait ..... is it a group of cars who are messing around with their lights and it just happens to look like a flying saucer?

So it is on the ground then moonie?

[Moonie2012]

In the video it clearly looks like it is hovering, so i have no other reason to suspcest it is doing otherwise, wait ..... is it a group of cars who are messing around with their lights and it just happens to look like a flying saucer?

So it is on the ground then moonie?

First off, I never said it was a car. I don't know why you keep saying that - perhaps YOU think it's a car?

Second, you can't see anything underneath it but bright light. It could be sitting right on the ground, or there could be support struts, or landing gear, or cement blocks - pretty much anything!

Do you EVER look at any UFO evidence with a critical eye at all? Do you believe every single thing you see and read? You DO realize people hoax UFO stuff all the time, right?

If you honestly think that this video irrefutably shows a HOVERING vehicle, I just can't take you seriously anymore.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Moonie2012

[Moonie2012]

I got to the end of the clip and saw the helicopter explanation - I think that's a pretty good one.

Ground flares with concealing, confusing smoke; strobing police-type light on top and a bright directional spotlight on the bottom, it looks like it has a tail off to the right - yeah, it could very well be a grounded helicopter partially obscured by smoke.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Moonie2012

[Hocus]

First off, I never said it was a car. I don't know why you keep saying that - perhaps YOU think it's a car?

Second, you can't see anything underneath it but bright light. It could be sitting right on the ground, or there could be support struts, or landing gear, or cement blocks - pretty much anything!

Do you EVER look at any UFO evidence with a critical eye at all? Do you believe every single thing you see and read? You DO realize people hoax UFO stuff all the time, right?

If you honestly think that this video irrefutably shows a HOVERING vehicle, I just can't take you seriously anymore.

I was reffering to a past comment of yours about the ufo hovering for 6 hours which you thought were cars parked upon a hill.

Yes indeed i do, if someone has posted a picture of a ufo or alien and it's a hoax or doesn't look genuine or that it is a misidentification, i will be and am the first to say it.

I could ask you that same question, just because i am a believer, i am willing to let my guard down and say it's not a ufo or an alien, but it seems to me that you and most skeptics have your barriers up all the time and are never willing to say "yeah that could be an alien craft" or "that is a ufo of unknown origin" ... there always seems to be a logical explanation in your minds, no matter how outrageous it sounds and sometimes is.

I honestly believe that the video appears to show a craft that looks to be hovering, from what i can make out. I never said irrefutably did i?

Could you please tell me your explanation for the lights then moonie? I am most interested.

And wether you want to take me seriously or not is up to you, it is irrelevant to me, i could have said the same about taking you seriously when you said a ufo was caused by car lights on a hill and they had somehow managed to park their cars in a fashion so that it looked like a flying saucer, and appeared to have made a visible outline of one.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Edited November 17, 2008 by hocus

[Moonie2012]

I was reffering to a past comment of yours about the ufo hovering for 6 hours which you thought were cars parked upon a hill.

Yes indeed i do, if someone has posted a picture of a ufo or alien and it's a hoax or doesn't look genuine or that it is a misidentification, i will be and am the first to say it.

I could ask you that same question, just because i am a believer, i am willing to let my guard down and say it's not a ufo or an alien, but it seems to me that you and most skeptics have your barriers up all the time and are never willing to say "yeah that could be an alien craft" or "that is a ufo of unknown origin" ... there always seems to be a logical explanation in your minds, no matter how outrageous it sounds and sometimes is.

I honestly believe that the video appears to show a craft that looks to be hovering, from what i can make out. I never said irrefutably did i?

Could you please tell me your explanation for the lights then moonie? I am most interested.

And wether you want to take me seriously or not is up to you, it is irrelevant to me, i could have said the same about taking you seriously when you said a ufo was caused by car lights on a hill and they had somehow managed to park their cars in a fashion so that it looked like a flying saucer.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Case is closed on this one for me, see my last post - I vote helicopter. A GROUNDED helicopter.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Moonie2012

[The One Who Is]

Case is closed on this one for me, see my last post - I vote helicopter. A GROUNDED helicopter.

And those can hover, too! Everyone's happy. Right on.

I'm with you.

[Hocus]

Case is closed on this one for me, see my last post - I vote helicopter. A GROUNDED helicopter.

Fair enough, all i know is it's an unknown object that has bright lights and appears to be hovering.

[thefinalfrontier]

Hi Hocus, And Monnie2012 no pun intended here but i would like to ask if you have EVER seen anything that makes you say WTH is that? I have not seen you in a thread with a very good argument yet and I dont think I ever will, Hocus is right, Everyone has their take on what footage is available and then its up for questioning , Its always man made lights in your opinion and I respect that but man you need to open your eyes with just a tinge of asking whats really going on rather than jumping in on each theread and say its man made, Sure there are alot of hoaxes going on all the time but on the equal there is some very convincing footage that can not be hoaxed, It just seems to me that all the heated threads seem to revolve around your opinion but just so you know others have opinions and those opinions should be respected always,

i am A believer but keeping one foot planted on terra firma,

Regards;

TFF

Edited November 17, 2008 by thefinalfrontier

[Moonie2012]

Hi Hocus, And Monnie2012 no pun intended here but i would like to ask if you have EVER seen anything that makes you say WTH is that?

Sure I have - just not this time. You don't see me in every single UFO thread trying to explain it.

I have not seen you in a thread with a very good argument yet and I dont think I ever will

Oh really - is that why you gave up and conceded on our debate? Man, you just don't know when to admit you've been beaten, huh? You can't even admit that I MIGHT be right, not even once. I can admit when something is truly unexplainable.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Moonie2012

[louis_last]

this is quite an old video, i'm sure it was proven that it shows a helicopter on the ground. moonie 2012 makes a valid point when he asks why its such a short piece of footage of such a remarkable event.

[thefinalfrontier]

Sure I have.

Oh really - is that why you gave up and conceded on our debate? Man, you just don't know when to admit you've been beaten, huh?

Ummm Never mind, I would simply like to ask if YOU have ever seen anything that can not be explained, That was the jist of my comment, Oh and I replied to your debate,

Regards;

TFF

[thefinalfrontier]

Lets see what we have on this video, It has a Nasa researcher saying its a unidentified flying object and then Mr. Mackabee is a very respected ufologist and hes saying its an unidentified flying object and in fact they both use the term UFO, So then we have a police officer who says no its a helicopter and not a ufo, So I would think its not a ufo if i listened to a simple police officer who dont specialize in this field, But on the other side of the argument we have a Nasa resarcher saying its a ufo and a well respected ufoligist saying a helicopter is complete nonsense, So the real question is here is THIS,

Who are we to belive? i think i would put my bets on the researchers who are more than familiar to this field,

JMO;

Regards;

TFF

Edited November 17, 2008 by thefinalfrontier

[Moonie2012]

Who are we to belive? i think i would put my bets on the researchers who are more than familiar to this field,

Oh yes, because an "expert" in unknown (that means we know literally nothing about it) technology is MUCH more familiar with what they "know" than a cop who works closely with (very real) helicopters all the time.

That makes perfect sense.

But I bet I'm not making a good argument yet again, huh? I just never make any SENSE!

Edited November 17, 2008 by Moonie2012

[Wyvernkeeper]

Oh yes, because an "expert" in unknown (that means we know literally nothing about it) technology is MUCH more familiar with what they "know" than a cop who works closely with (very real) helicopters all the time.

That makes perfect sense.

A good point, but you should also consider that ufologists generally dont wish to bring disrepute unto their field. For that reason they do not leap toward the ufo answer as you are suggesting but do desire to actually figure these things out. I dont think they say it is a UFO because they want it to be one, because that way when it emerges that it is a hoax/ misidentification they look stupid. Surely they wish to protect their credibility to some extent, thereby resulting in at least a small degree of reserve, consideration and research

just a thought...

[Moonie2012]

A good point, but you should also consider that ufologists generally dont wish to bring disrepute unto their field. For that reason they do not leap toward the ufo answer as you are suggesting but do desire to actually figure these things out. I dont think they say it is a UFO because they want it to be one, because that way when it emerges that it is a hoax/ misidentification they look stupid. Surely they wish to protect their credibility to some extent, thereby resulting in at least a small degree of reserve, consideration and research

just a thought...

I'm wondering what their stance is when something they swear is "not of this Earth" is later proven to be something normal.

It must happen from time to time - what do they do then? Do they admit they were wrong, or do they keep pushing the UFO card against better judgment?

Also, when you take into account that these guys are doggedly arguing for something unknown, unprovable and "alien", it's not hard to imagine the biggest UFO "experts" being...well, a little "special", for lack of a better term. I don't think looking stupid to the general public is really something that they worry or care about anymore (if they ever did).

Edited November 17, 2008 by Moonie2012

[thefinalfrontier]

Oh yes, because an "expert" in unknown (that means we know literally nothing about it) technology is MUCH more familiar with what they "know" than a cop who works closely with (very real) helicopters all the time.

That makes perfect sense.

But I bet I'm not making a good argument yet again, huh? I just never make any SENSE!

Moonie 2012, I have not said that and you can see right above where you posted so those words are of your choosing, You bet i would take researchers more serious than a police officer who says its a helicopter because he works with them all the time,. That thing did not in any way resemble a helicopter either,

Regards;

TFF